DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.141 of 09-04-2013
Decided on 23-08-2013
K.M Gupta, Advocate aged about 50 years S/o P.C Gupta R/o 22553, St.No.18, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.The Managing Director, Onida Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B3/4 Nandkishore Industrial Estate Off Mahakali Cave Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai.
2.Sh.Amarjeet Singh (G.L), Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. near Old Telephone Exchange, Bathinda.
3.Mirc Electronics Ltd., 3761 Basement Bindra Complex, near Baba Deep Singh Gurudwara, Jwadi Road, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.K.M Gupta, complainant in person.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Vakeel Singh, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased the television with the warranty of 4 years i.e. World Cup to World Cup. The complainant has extended the warranty from 29.3.2007 to 28.3.2011 i.e. further World Cup to World Cup from the office of the opposite parties vide EWC No.0636556 by paying Rs.2300/- in cash on dated 20.3.2006. The complainant alleged that the said television was a defective piece supplied by the authorized dealer M/s Bhatia Electronics, Railway Road, Bathinda. The complainant has lodged the complaints with the authorized service centres but the opposite parties have rectified the fault temporarily. The complainant has requested the opposite parties to rectify the said defects permanentally but they have failed to do so. After the lapse of the warranty period, one official of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and asked him to sent the said television to the service centre and the same would be repaired after charging the repair amount. The complainant had no option, just to pay Rs.800/- as repair charges. After repeated requests of the complainant, one official namely Sushil Kumar visited the house of the complainant and replaced the main supply board but he did not fit the said television set properly and it is lying open till date and dangerous for the complainant and his small children as there are chances of short circuit. Thereafter the opposite parties never visited the house of the complainant and repaired the television in question. The complainant has also got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on dated 9.2.2013 but to no effect. The complainant has a dish TV connection and has deposited the huge amount every month in its subscription with the hope that the said television set would be repaired and he and his family would be able to enjoy the same. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to replace the said television set alongwith cost and compensation or to give any alternative relief.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the warranty of the product expired on 28th March, 2011 and the complainant had not extended the warranty for the product and after the expiry of the warranty period, it is obligatory to the opposite parties to provide the paid repair service and not to replace the product or refund the amount. Since the date of purchase of the said television is 2003 and till November 2012 there was no complaint. The first complaint has been lodged by the complainant in November 2012 and the same was resolved. After receiving the complaint from the complainant, the service engineer inspected the product and communicated him an estimate for the amount of Rs.3500/- to replace the chassis but he refused to pay the same and started demanding repair free of cost. Notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties was duly received by them and they communicated him that the allegations mentioned in the notice are untrue. The opposite party No.3 has sent a preliminary reply. Initially, there was 4 years warranty of the product that expired in January 2007. The complainant has got extended the warranty for 4 years, in the month of March 2007 i.e. valid upto 31st March, 2011. There is no manufacturing defect in the said television. The complainant has used the said product for more than 10 years without any defect in it. The complainant has himself admitted that he had sent the product to the service centre after the expiry of warranty period. The complainant has mentioned the repair charges in the complaint as Rs.800/- but in the notice, it has been mentioned as Rs.1600/-. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 are still ready to repair the product, if the complainant will pay the repair charges.
3. The opposite party No.2 has suffered a statement on dated 25.6.2013 to the effect that the reply of the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 may be read as reply of the opposite party No.2.
4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
6. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant has purchased the television in the year 2003 with the warranty for 4 years i.e. World Cup to World Cup. The complainant has got extended the warranty from 29.3.2007 to 28.3.2011 i.e. further World Cup to World Cup from the office of the opposite parties vide EWC No.0636556 by paying Rs.2300/- in cash on dated 20.3.2006.
7. The disputed facts are that the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defects in the television in question as it went out of order again after repairs. The complainant has lodged the complaint with the service centre of the opposite parties in the year 2011 but till date the defect have not been rectified by them. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties, they conveyed him that the said television would be repaired after charging the amount of Rs.1600/-, although the same was under the warranty on the ground that EHT of the said television was not available with them and they would purchase the same from outside for making the said television in order. After receiving Rs.1600/- from the complainant, the opposite parties have issued the receipt of Rs.800/- only. The complainant took the said television to his house but it was not operational. The complainant again lodged the complaint with the opposite parties. After receiving many complaints, one official namely Sushil Kumar visited the house of the complainant and after removing the parts of the said television, put a chassis of another model in it and left the television in question in open condition, since the chassis did not fit in the television in question and the same was lying outside it.
8. The opposite parties submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the said television. The complainant used the said television for more than 10 years without any defect or complaint. The complainant has sent the television in question to the service centre after the expiry of the warranty period. During the first warranty period or extended warranty period, the complainant had not made any complaint regarding any defect in the said television. The complainant has mentioned the repair charges in the complaint as Rs.800/- but in the notice, it has been mentioned as Rs.1600/-. The service engineer has disclosed the complainant that the chassis of the said television is to be replaced and the estimate amount thereof would be Rs.3500/- but he refused to pay the same and started demanding the repair free of cost. The complainant has not signed the job sheet and failed to approve the estimate amount communicated to him. The warranty of the product expired on 28th March, 2011 and thereafter the complainant has not extended its warranty and after the expiry of the warranty, he cannot seek the free service, rather he has to pay the charges for the repair, spare parts and service.
9. A perusal of record placed on file Ex.C10 and Ex.C11, photocopy of photographs of the said television shows that the main supply board is fixed outside it. The complainant has placed nothing on file to prove that he has approached to the opposite parties with any defect within the warranty period. The amount of Rs.800/- has been received by the opposite parties on 10.11.2012, as on 10.11.2012 the said television was out of warranty. Moreover there is no evidence on the file to prove that the complainant has ever approached the opposite parties with any complaint prior to 10.11.2012. As per the warranty conditions, the opposite parties were bound to give free services and to replace the damaged parts free of cost within the warranty period only. After the expiry of the warranty period, the opposite parties are liable to repair the said television but after charging the estimate amount from the complainant. The complainant has prayed in the complaint for the replacement of the said television, whereas he has already used the same for approximately 9 years without reporting any manufacturing defect in it. The averment of the complainant that the opposite parties charged Rs.1600/- but issued a receipt of Rs.800/- vide Ex.C4, this averment of the complainant seems to be wrong as the opposite parties have issued the receipt of Rs.800/-, there was no reason for not issuing the receipt of Rs.1600/-. Now the defect in the said television is regarding its chassis as the opposite parties submitted that the chassis of the said television was not available with them and is subject to repair charges of Rs.3500/-.
10. As discussed above a perusal of Ex.C10 and Ex.C11 shows that the main supply board of the said television is installed outside it and the wires are lying open which can cause short circuit at anytime and children are prone to electric shock. No doubt the said television was out of warranty but the repair done by the opposite parties is not upto the mark, rather it has been done temporarily and without considering the fact that the main supply board should not hang outside the television in question as it is to be fixed inside the television in question.
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties for not repairing the said television properly, thus this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2500/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects in the said television properly to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and make it in working condition after charging an estimate amount of Rs.3500/- from the complainant.
12. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced in open Forum
23-08-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
